If so that's rather disappointing, I'd prefer someone who can actually act even if that means we don't get multiple full frontal shots. I mean don't get me wrong, I love graphic nudity and full frontal shots, but if I want that I can always just watch porn.
share[deleted]
Why is that "cynical"? Cynicism to me implies a disbelief in people's stated (presumably positive) motives; if he panders to people's salacious curiosities and it works, that seems quite savvy to me. The only people who should be upset about the whole thing are those who pay to see the movie and are disappointed with the low level of graphic nudity, but they only have themselves to blame anyway.
shareNo. There is very little nudity in this film.
shareNot to mention there are no sex scenes in the film. The whole point was to show that not all men's fantasies are about sex. For some men their biggest fantasy is to have a "girlfriend" who they can take out to coffee and talk about the latest book they read.
Just because she was a high priced escort doesn't mean men just want intercourse and nothing else. The intimacy is a part of the fantasy.
I don't even think it's some men, I would venture to say most. We're led to believe that men care about sex above all else, but if you talk to most prostitutes they'll tell you that yes their clients also want sex but what they really want is the companionship. I think Chelsea's services are an upgraded version of what most upscale prostitutes already do.
shareI know this a inordinately late response however I thought I post the 'REAL' answer and leave out the speculation by the amatuers who have tried in vane to explain or understand his extraordinary concept. Well here it is in all its glory from Steven Soderbergh on The Girlfriend Experience: 'I hired real people and turned them loose'
Today, taking sex work as the central concern of a feature no longer offers the transgressive frisson delivered by sex, lies or such precedents as Godard's Vivre Sa Vie. Nor did Soderbergh fear provoking any cognitive dissonance by using a star of adult movies. "Porn is beyond everywhere now," he says. "Everybody on television looks like they're in porn, you know? I mean, the people that give you the news every day look like porn actors. The degree of coiffing that's going on is kind of disturbing."
Rather, it was Grey's experience in sex work, as well as in front of the camera, that made her so compelling a casting option. "I wanted somebody who in sexualised situations feels totally in command and powerful." Grey's presence is magnetic, partly because of a sense of controlled yet indulgent distance. "What a lot of people might see as a problem, I felt was crucial to the core of the movie," Soderbergh says, "'her' sort of disconnected quality. A lot of people are like, 'She seems really kind of flat.' Yeah, exactly." He mentions a scene that exemplifies "the way that she looks completely relaxed, she looks completely in control, she looks content … I don't know how you fake that. It's just like Zen, totally Zen."
Grey's fans of long standing will also be getting something new: a girlfriend experience. "With Sasha, you can within seconds see her do anything you can imagine with her clothes off," Soderbergh acknowledges. "What you can't see is what it's like to be her boyfriend, to hang out with her and be emotionally intimate with her. So my whole theory is that's the fantasy for those who've been double-clicking – that they want to spend 77 minutes being her boyfriend."
SOURCE: http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/filmblog/2009/apr/29/steven-soderbergh-the-girlfriend-experience-sasha-grey
Many pornstars have appeared in mainstream films since 1972. As for the rest of your message, I have great difficult deciphering what the hell you're trying to say, except that it seems to categorically contradict the Guardian article you cite.
shareWhich part didn't you get???
Steven Soderbergh decision to use Sasha Grey a well known porn actress in his mainstream film
OR...
... once again dialoguing like this hadn't occurred about a mainstream movie featuring a porn star since "Deep Throat" (1972). Yes, people, that was most certainly a mainstream film and was also recognized as such by all major media channels.
I didn't read your message but I'm glad to see you've stopped writing in colours.
shareI don't think that was the reason, because there was very little nudity and no sexual content.
it's funny how in the indie market as well as mainstream they can make programs that have very graphic material border line Softcore and know one says anything about those actors/actresses its the excepted norm *beep* seen sasha grey's acting not as a porn actress but a legit one .i think if she's really willing to make and effort and go legit .
We should except it as the norm im sure there are alot of pretty actresses in hollywood trying to make it .Who can't act worth a damn but get hired to show tits and ass.Or play slutty prostitute #1 .also you have shows on cinemax and showtime .that practically have material in them that can be considered softcore ..Why can't sasha grey make and effort to be legit ..when there is the opposite going on in the legit film industry ..I'm sure if we show angie jolie or naomi watts doing very graphic sex scenes with full frontal nudity that would be ok right ?..even though what they would be doing is in the same neighborhood as what sasha grey does